Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Civil War | Review

Published

on

Civil War | Review

Alex Garland’s Civil War depicts a fictional US conflict that is less about conveying a political perspective as it is a tense statement about the normalization of violence and collectively losing sight of the bigger picture.  

Poignancy in film is sometimes on purpose, sometimes just coincidence. Civil War is a bit of both. Here is a film that recognizes the diplomatic atmosphere being as strained as it has been in a very long time, but also comes to theaters exactly at the right time when those conflicts are heightened to a worryingly improbable end. Civil War may depict a fictional conflict in the United States, but it’s message speaks to the global increase of violence in our lives driven by the splintering of society towards radical perspectives – in specific those who act upon them and those who pretend they aren’t a threat. 

Those exact perspectives aren’t clearly defined in Civil War, which is a detriment to those viewers who are hoping the film will champion their own specific views. Instead, director Alex Garland makes the choice to not explicitly detail the cause of his fictional civil war, but instead realize the greater implications of that conflict on the general population. It recognizes the general opportunity of how things could get out of control here in the US, as if to demonstrate that the systems of our precious constitution are just as susceptible to abuse as anywhere else in the world.

Civil War

Directed By: Alex Garland
Written By: Alex Garland
Starring: Kristen Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, Stephen McKinley-Henderson

Release Date: April 12, 2024

Advertisement

By not providing a concrete reason for the conflict, Garland’s film suggests the flaws of humanity make it inevitable. He reinforces this theme by peppering in accounts of people who are pretending the war isn’t happening, as if to suggest their ambivalence played a role. The film contrasts the experiences of those people with their heads buried in the sand by spinning a narrative around those who are paid not to: war correspondents. 

The story focuses on a renowned journalist Lee Smith (Kristen Dunst) who has made a name for herself covering harrowing atrocities across the globe, and her colleague Joel (Wagner Moura) who lives for the thrill of experiencing the thrill of battle in person. As the civil war is upon the precipice of conclusion, they decide to race to Washington D.C. to try and interview the President of the United states before he is captured by his opposition. In this journey they are joined by Sammy, a veteran reporter who would rather die than stop working (Stephen McKinley-Henderson), and Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), a young and inexperienced photographer who looks up to Lee. 

Lee and Joel are an experienced 2-man crew who have been together through some very dangerous conflicts depicted to the audience through flashbacks. Sammy and Jessie’s involvement thus represents a hazard because they don’t just have to worry about themselves, they have to look out for two people who don’t have the same capabilities as they do. But while Sammy is willingly putting himself in danger and has the wherewithal to know exactly what he is getting himself into, Jessie does not. Joel and Lee’s opposing perspectives on the approach to their work is something that makes their working relationship function, but it creates conflict in regards to Jessie. 

Lee is reluctant to bring Jessie in under her belt and show her the ropes because she has seen the worst of humanity and fears Jessie isn’t prepared for it both emotionally and physically. Lee doesn’t want to have to care about someone else because it may compromise her ability to do her own work. Meanwhile Joel is excited to be able to share his enthusiasm for being in the thick of the battle and wants to help Jessie experience this for the first time. For her part Jessie realizes the uncomfortable burden her presence places on the group, but knows that if she wants to further her career this is a golden opportunity she would never get if she played it safe. 

In this way, all of them essentially exploit the pain and suffering of others for their living. This experience has essentially numbed them to the motivations of the conflict, which is part of the reason why the film doesn’t spend time commenting on them. Furthermore, it isn’t really possible for Lee & Company to be on one side or the other because the integrity of their craft and personal safety requires them to be ambivalent. In many ways they hide behind it like a shield. While they can’t ignore the conflict, their reasoning to not be on one side or the other is just as selfish as those who are ignoring the conflict. 

Advertisement

You could construe this as a criticism of the media, which I think may be valid. But I think the point is the fact that our society is at a point where “sides” are necessary in the first place. This is a bigger criticism of the world’s social development as a whole. Rather than be motivated by the greater good, we’re motivated by selfish desires and we channel that into picking “sides”. At one point in the film, the main characters encounter a man with a gun who has captured and tortured two men because they were stealing from him. He comments on how he had gone to high school with one of them, suggesting the extremes that have become necessary – even in a civilized first-world nation – for individual survival. 

Director/writer Garland first made a name for himself in cinema by reinventing the zombie genre for the 21st Century with his script for 28 Days Later. In many ways, Civil War feels like a zombie movie. The world it depicts has fleeting reminders of normalcy amidst a harrowing almost post-apocalyptic fight for survival. There are gripping action sequences with sound design that pummels you into the back of your seat. And yet most of the film is quiet, expressing the void of humanity from this possible future. Garland depicts empty streets with the occasional roving military vehicle, others are littered with the carcasses of cars and equipment abandoned long ago. Like a zombie movie it hinges on humanity’s hubris – despite all our impressive accomplishments we’re still a deeply flawed species. 

Kristen Dunst portrays Lee the entire film with the aghast expression of someone who has seen too much. But Jessie’s inclusion in her life is what ultimately breaks her. Not because she witnesses her loss of innocence first-hand, but because Lee sees herself in Jessie. From this outside perspective Lee begins to feel the guilt that she had hid away for all these years. Reporting on these terrible events doesn’t necessarily bring heightened concern from the general public, instead it fuels our tolerance for them. 

Civil War offers us the ultimate paradox of our modern information age; the more we know about what is going on, the worse off we are. Truth becomes the enemy not because of what it means to us, but because of our selfish reactions towards it. The film conveys a pulse-quickening tale of survival in a harrowing dystopia of fear towards knowledge. It flies in the face of every horror film where we’re told that the most frightening thing is the unknown. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

‘Balaramana Dinagalu’ review: A restrained look at the gangster mind

Published

on

‘Balaramana Dinagalu’ review: A restrained look at the gangster mind

In K M Chaitanya’s Aa Dinagalu (2007), actor Atul Kulkarni, playing gangster Agni Sreedhar, says man is the biggest weapon in the underworld. “The rest are just properties,” he adds. The yesteryear Kannada crime drama, based on the real incidents from a big chapter of the Bengaluru underworld, stood out for its understated storytelling.

In Balaramana Dinagalu, which has the skeleton of a sequel to Aa Dinagalu, weapons are seen in the first scene. As the film progresses, we encounter an arsenal of knives, razors, machetes, and guns — each an extension of the gangsters’ identities and an indispensable tool in their quest to remain feared and lethal. Chaitanya attempts to make the movie a mix of reality and entertaining tropes.

Balaramana Dinagalu (Kannada)

Director: K M Chaitanya

Cast: Vinod Prabhakar, Priya Anand, Atul Kulkarni, Ashish Vidyarthi, Ramesh Indira

Runtime: 151 minutes

Advertisement

Storyline: Balarama, an ordinary young man from a remote village in Karnataka, becomes a dreaded gangster who rules Bengaluru

The director has roped in the same cast, who played the dreaded gangster trio of Kotwal Ramachandra (essayed by Sharath Lohitashwa), Jayaraj (Ashish Vidyarthi), and Agni Sreedhar (Atul) in Aa Dinagalu. That’s what makes one instantly curious about Balaramana Dinagalu. The only difference in the latest movie from the previous one is the fictionalised names of the real dons. Jayaraj becomes Jayaram, Sreedhar is Shashidhar, and Muthappa Rai is called Monnappa Rai (played by Ramesh Indira).

Even if these characters are the big draw in the movie, the plot revolves around the journey of Balarama, a character with a small yet significant presence in Aa Dinagalu. Vinod Prabhakar’s portrayal of the titular role is the film’s biggest takeaway. He makes us feel for the character, and is quite impressive in the final portions of the movie, where Balarama struggles to break free from the underworld’s trap.

Balaramana Dinagalu is impressive when it reflects the psychology of a gangster. Jayaram is shown helping the needy while Balarama urges young boys to focus on education. It’s as if these men who commit heinous acts, have a heart as well. Shashidhar is often called “intellectual gangster”, as the film reflects how the underworld fears well-read men in the field. Politicians and policemen, the supposedly the protectors of people being part of the crime nexus, strengthen the movie’s world-building.

The film falters in its inability to rise above the plot’s predictability. Balarama’s journey is no different from the often-seen life of an innocent man from a small town who becomes a gangster owing to uncontrollable circumstances. I wish the film had delved a bit more into Balaram’s personality. Why does he not resist becoming a gangster? What dreams did he have when he moved to Bengaluru from a small town?

Advertisement

“My hands speak louder than my words,” says Balarama. This signals that he is someone who settles conflicts with fists rather than conversations. Despite this detail, Balaram’s entry into the underworld feels too sudden. The predictability strips the sheen away from the well-shot action sequences, as the result of every fight is known beforehand.

Chaitanya is careful not to glorify the act of violence. He wants to portray the negative effects of violence on the children in a family, as the movie ends with a hard-hitting frame. It’s impressive that the actor-director duo has delivered a non-hero-worshipping gangster saga.

That said, the movie could have benefited from a couple of gripping episodes. While it’s important not to romanticise the life of a gangster, there is no harm in delivering moments of peak tension, the biggest plus of the genre. 

The assassination of Jayaram, the impact of Kotwal’s elimination on the underworld, or the Sakleshpura incident involving Monnappa Rai, had the potential to offer edge-of-the-seat, high-stakes portions, but they are rushed. The love story is simple, but it lacks emotional intensity between the lead couple. Santhosh Narayanan’s dance numbers are forgettable (despite it being his forte) while his montage melodies are beautiful.

Balaramana Dinagalu adopts a restrained, almost clinical approach to the gangster genre. While that keeps it from glorifying violence, it also leaves the narrative feeling a touch too neat and emotionally muted.

Advertisement

Balaramana Dinagalu is currently running in theatres

Published – June 28, 2026 07:58 pm IST

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

A New Dawn Anime Film Review

Published

on

A New Dawn Anime Film Review

Perhaps there’s a certain irony in a story about a fireworks factory mostly keeping away from explosive drama. Yoshitoshi Shinomiya‘s lowkey feature directorial debut A New Dawn is at the very least visually captivating, comprised of lush and rather hypnotic production design. The story is small scale focusing on a trio of friends who try to save a fireworks factory in their hometown, but the imagery feels expansive and lush. A New Dawn begins with a beautiful and vaguely familiar display of this beauty: the flowing, painterly imagery of its opening sequence recalls Shinomiya’s work on the flashback sequence in Makoto Shinkai‘s your name., immediately showing that the film’s visuals might transcend its small town drama.

A background artist himself on films by Makoto Shinkai as well as the similarly resplendent Pompo: The Cinéphile, it makes sense that this history would be felt in the background works of A New Dawn. They’re dense with detail, rich with almost luminous color and illustrative texture. Shinomiya, who also wrote and storyboarded the film, veers away from the photorealism associated with someone like Shinkai through some impressionist touches – like the splotches of green paint which represent treelines – which sometimes turns into outright abstraction like when a character begins to run through the space. Sometimes there are swaying, morphing textures in the background as splotches of paint subtly shift around. On a more intimate level, the cluttered and characterful interior spaces tell a story too. This is a long-winded way of saying A New Dawn looks really, really good.

It’s not just in the tableaux of its countryside habitats and ramshackle living spaces carved out of abandoned warehouses, but there’s a sense of invention permeating through A New Dawn‘s various experiments with visual languages of animation. The most prominent is an incredibly charming stop motion animated sequence using a cardboard diorama and real human hands invading the shot in a creative reflection of a drunken character’s perspective. Even though it broadly still looks “anime” through its character design, there are also smaller details which work to set A New Dawn apart from its contemporaries, touches like its occasional lineless artwork or the way rain is defined through smudged black brushstrokes.

It’s in the screenwriting where A New Dawn begins to feel more run of the mill. Its story about the constant chasing of the majesty of a fabled firework “Shuhari” feels both familiar in its premise but also a little bit alienating in its structure. The importance of the firework itself never feels clear – the moment its mystery is unravelled hardly feels like a revelation as a result, something amplified by how the writing often obfuscates what anyone is talking about. The whole story feels a little distancing, and despite the allure of the background art and design of the spaces the characters inhabit, the people themselves feel constantly at arms length.

It almost pulls things back with its climax – the detonation of the “Shuhari” goes a long way in justifying the circular conversations about its nature and origins – a painted streak of light launches into the sky before turning into something otherworldly, suddenly tripling down on the film’s captivating exaggerations.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Hollywood Pariah Kevin Spacey Opens in a Straight to Video Movie with 25 Producers, 1 Review, No Theaters, No Press – Showbiz411

Published

on

Hollywood Pariah Kevin Spacey Opens in a Straight to Video Movie with 25 Producers, 1 Review, No Theaters, No Press – Showbiz411
★ Make Showbiz411 your Preferred Source on Google

As we know, Kevin Spacey is a pariah in Hollywood.

He’s in a rare club with Mel Gibson, Armie Hammer, Nate Parker, Jonathan Majors, and James Franco.

Spacey has managed to avoid jail time by reaching settlements with various accusers of sexual malfeasance, all men.

His film career — which included two Oscars and a Tony Award — has been destroyed.

Advertisement

Spacey has been reduced to appearing in straight to video films, made for whatever reason the various producers involved know only to themselves.

On Friday, a new Spacey movie surfaced against its will, but not in theaters. It also went straight to video. “1780” is a period piece set during the Revolutionary War. Spacey plays a toothless Pennsylvania country trapper.

There is no rating on Rotten Tomatoes, largely because there is only one review. The review by Alan Ng of Film Threat is positive. Ng recently reviewed “World War Bigfoot,” which he also liked. He seems to specialize in reviewing films no one has heard of.

“1780” does boast 25 producers who will probably not see a return on their investment. But they can say they made a movie with Kevin Spacey.

Advertisement

Donate to Showbiz411.com

Showbiz411 is now in its 13th year of providing breaking and exclusive entertainment news. This is an independent site, unlike the many Hollywood trades that are owned by one company. To continue providing news that takes a fresh look at what’s going on in movies, music, theater, etc, advertising is our basis. Reader donations would be greatly appreciated, too. They are just another facet of keeping fact based journalism alive.
Thank you

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending